Qualified answer: Not yet. It is because of those files - but Rich is working his way through them so it will be soon.

The list of what they have updated already is:

ChickamaugaGettysburgCorinthAntietam-and currently he is working with Shiloh.

(These updates that are currently being posted have the newer map graphics ... not mine, by the way).

If you have any of those packages you should be able to swap the graphics files over from your Map folder.

Part of the issue that you are referring to might actually involve the way a particular map was designed -in that it is keying off of the elevation from the Map file and not the graphics. If that is the case, then you will wind up probably having the same look even after switching around graphics files.

What it sounds like you might be after is a revised color scheme for the hex grid.

Qualified answer: Not yet. It is because of those files - but Rich is working his way through them so it will be soon.

The list of what they have updated already is:

ChickamaugaGettysburgCorinthAntietam-and currently he is working with Shiloh.

(These updates that are currently being posted have the newer map graphics ... not mine, by the way).

If you have any of those packages you should be able to swap the graphics files over from your Map folder.

Part of the issue that you are referring to might actually involve the way a particular map was designed -in that it is keying off of the elevation from the Map file and not the graphics. If that is the case, then you will wind up probably having the same look even after switching around graphics files.

What it sounds like you might be after is a revised color scheme for the hex grid.

I am looking for the same look that Chancellorsville gives, where the highest points jump out because they are brown. When i look at the Overland map, I find it hard to see quickly the high points.

Its just a personal preference.........I'm sure there are probably more who like the Overland look.

Ok- question being then what exact map file are you looking at in each title? Or barring that - what scenario are you looking at?

What I am trying to say is that it is possible to have the same area covered in a map in two different titles but have different elevations being used -which would be a problem that would be more map file than graphics related.

Anyway- no matter, if you want flick Rich an email to see if he can do Chancellorsville next for you. He's trying to get all of the titles to the same level of programming, and the next title he covers can be Chancellorsville as well as any of the other remaining titles. Or in other words, they all have to be done anyway - why not put it out there?

I think the problem is most likely what you are saying about the elevations not agreeing in both of your maps, meaning that if you swap out the graphics out you might not fix the issue you are wanting addressed. It sounds like you are probably talking about a re-done set of hex graphics (specifically the color range) what would show a different range of colors on the file for your elevations in question.

I can be done a few ways. I want to put a disclaimer out there that I am not a part of the graphics team for the CWB series, so I am only talking to the technical issues.

What you are discussing about map graphics is beyond me, but I would like to take this opportunity to put in a plug for larger maps such as the grand overland map and also map accuracy and conformity. The scenarios I have enjoyed most are long-term large scale ones such as the grand overland or ones I have designed myself using the largest of the Gettysburg and Chickamauga-Chattanooga maps, which are inadequate to the campaigns they represent. The downside to these scenarios is that they often take years to complete.

I guess the differences described of Fredricksburg in December 1862 and May 1864 might be explained by population growth and rainfall differentiation, but barring evidence of this I would prefer conformity.

I think there should also be conformity in the PDF, even though this can be obtained by player modification. A napoleon in Virginia should have pretty much the same effect as a napoleon in Tennessee or Mississippi.

I think that you got it Dukemat. I've run into that same thing before. That being said I would be surprised if the stock graphics don't eventually change in the series anyway but I will just leave that out there. It isn't something that I am going to be working on (I got other things they have me doing).

Mr Mihalek, I agree with you -bigger maps are always going to be better -especially so from a scenario design standpoint since you can then make a submap out of anything on that larger map -which is why that one in Overland is so useful. I don't actually work with the map files directly (not in CWB), but I imagine that the development team is around and would take note of something like that.

Your example of Fredericksburg too, might be two different people made each respective map. I have seen that happen in other projects -but the bottom line is, is that I think anyone involved in the maps wants to strive for accuracy, so what is being said is an important conversation to be having. I'll give you an example of one that I had been working on in something else - it looked to have had urban areas made based upon a modern map although the actual map was supposed to be a couple of centuries older (mind you it got changed ... but that is another story) - anyway, the bottom line is it can happen but that is why getting good critical feedback can be so helpful.

It took me a while to read through the various posts in this thread. I hope that I am offering something new here. First, Doug Strickler made the monster (master) map for Overland, and he did a fantastic job. One can bring up a modern topo map In Virginia and compare it to the hex map, and you can trace streams in the hex map and they match almost exactly what the topo map shows. Try bringing up a topo map of the areas in Fredericksburg or other places with the discrepancies mentioned, and see which hex map elevation more closely matches the topo. Doug also used historic maps for place names and foliage patterns, etc.Also one reason the elevations are of different color is because in the Overland map the elevations start at sea level and go up to 780 feet (26 elevations x 30 ft contour interval. We really need more elevations, and I've mentioned that more than once to the engineers. In other maps, of other games, the lowest elevation, whatever it is, can be zero elevation where zero has a value of, say, 200 feet rather than sea level. If I am not clear enough on that, let me know.John FerryOverland co-designer

It took me a while to read through the various posts in this thread. I hope that I am offering something new here. First, Doug Strickler made the monster (master) map for Overland, and he did a fantastic job. One can bring up a modern topo map In Virginia and compare it to the hex map, and you can trace streams in the hex map and they match almost exactly what the topo map shows. Try bringing up a topo map of the areas in Fredericksburg or other places with the discrepancies mentioned, and see which hex map elevation more closely matches the topo. Doug also used historic maps for place names and foliage patterns, etc.Also one reason the elevations are of different color is because in the Overland map the elevations start at sea level and go up to 780 feet (26 elevations x 30 ft contour interval. We really need more elevations, and I've mentioned that more than once to the engineers. In other maps, of other games, the lowest elevation, whatever it is, can be zero elevation where zero has a value of, say, 200 feet rather than sea level. If I am not clear enough on that, let me know.John FerryOverland co-designer

I understand the problem.

My initial comment was that I liked the Chancellorsville game look with respect to higher elevations. I liked the way the hills just jumped off the map in the Chancellorsville game. That really does not happen as much with Overland till you get to 330 feet. The Fredericksburg area highest point is only about 180 feet and its still green pretty much everywhere.I find it harder to discern the high ground with the Overland game.

I realize to get that look with the Overland game a new set of 2DGround50 and 2DGround100 would be required.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum